A. The lower court, on the basis of the victim’s statement, acquitted the Defendant on the part of the victim, when causing injury to the victim, as described in the facts charged.

The recognition was recognized.

However, each statement made by a victim in an investigative agency is not consistent with the victim's statement, and is not reliable as it is inconsistent with the contents of the victim's injury diagnosis document, and is supported by the testimony of the court of the original instance. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1,500,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. At around 11:00 on October 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) committed assault to the victim, on the front side of the warehouse building located in Gosong-gun, North Chang-gun; (b) when the victim D (36 years of age) and the hulled due to the use of hull hulle facilities, he was able to listen to the victim’s humiliation; and (c) when she was frighted to the victim’s breath, she was able to bread up three times in a breath of fat; and (d) when she was faced with the victim, she was frightd to 15 days in a catter.

B. Determination 1) Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court under the Criminal Procedure Act has the nature of the so-called ex post facto deliberation based on the judgment of the court of first instance, but has the nature of the ex post facto deliberation that has considerable elements of the ex post facto examination. Therefore, when determining the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance

Therefore, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, when the appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first deliberation and make an ex post facto determination, it is reasonable to maintain that the first deliberation judgment was clearly erroneous or the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is inconsistent with logical and empirical rules.